Beyond the Pill: Looking for the Origins of the Sexual Revolution
May 11, 2010
Stuart Koehl
May 9, the fiftieth anniversary of the birth control pill’s approval, is being celebrated in the mainstream media by both feminists and environmentalists enamored of zero population growth. The pill is often considered the root cause of the sexual revolution, with some opining that, but for the pill, much of the sexual anarchy of the last forty years might have been avoided. But is this true, or did the pill merely accelerate moral and sexual trends already present in society?
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) is sometimes seen as the opening salvo of the sexual revolution. Griswold established a constitutional “right to privacy” through Justice Douglas’ famous discernments of “emanations and penumbras” supporting privacy, found in other constitutional guarantees. Griswold’s principal effect went beyond contraceptives, undermining the long-standing principle of legitimate societal interest in regulating sexual behavior. Without Griswold, Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas would not have been possible.
But Griswold wasn't about the pill—it was about condoms. Condoms and other barrier methods would share many of the pill’s consequences, albeit less conveniently. And the ruling in Griswold itself was not so much a radical break with the past as it was the culmination of a process that began with the nation’s experience of World War II.
Because of its scope and intensity, World War II shattered an existing moral consensus, creating a socially unstable situation in which “ordinary” morality was jettisoned. People lived very intensely and with the knowledge that everything, including life itself, was transient. The typical American serviceman in World War II had four sex partners, not counting prostitutes. Venereal disease rates for U.S. servicemen in Europe and Australia reached epidemic proportions that eventually required the military to license and regulate brothels. As Kipling wrote, “Single men in barracks don’t grow into plaster saints”.
While soldiers were fornicating their way across Europe and women on the home front were in contact with men on the war assembly lines, the number of “Dear John” letters received at the front and in the POW cages constituted a real threat to morale. One received in 1944 by a POW in Stalag Luft VII read: “Dear John, I hope you are open-minded, because I just had a baby. His father is a wonderful guy, and he has enclosed some cigars for you”. Of course, most men and women were not promiscuous during the war—just as most men and women today are not—but enough were to have a lasting impact.
After the war, everything was supposed to return to normal, but of course, it did not, and many trends conspired to ensure that they would not, including unprecedented prosperity, social and physical mobility—which broke down traditional ties of family and community, a burning resentment of authority among servicemen and a more relaxed attitude toward sex, growing out of the wartime experience.
For a generation that grew up in uniform, hypocrisy was not seen as something necessary for the smooth running of society. If the boomers grew up rebels, it’s because their parents encouraged rebellion even while outwardly conforming to social norms themselves. Everybody liked sex, and many broke sexual barriers, though still exercising discretion and obedience to form. But, looking at the divorce rates between the late forties to the mid-sixties, one can already see the incipient breakdown of marriage owing, in part, to hasty wartime marriages combined with the stress of servicemen reintegrating into civilian society. One prominent feature of many marriages then was the pressure on men to marry women whom they impregnated, resulting in shotgun weddings and “premature” births. Fortunately, it was at a time when a man just out of high school could get a high-paying, semi-skilled job with union protection. It would be safe to wager, though, that many of those marriages collapsed once their children were grown.
Many of the behaviors predisposed by the pill were already common, albeit covert, features of American life once the pill became available. The pill added fuel to a smoldering fire; it didn't start the blaze, but it certainly accelerated it and ensured its spread. The greatest damage done by the pill has been to women. It shifted the onus for avoiding pregnancy to women, absolving men of responsibility for unwanted pregnancies, which, in essence, made sex into a casual activity. Men no longer had to marry the women they impregnated, which, in turn, made legalized abortion inevitable, again leaving women to bear the psychological and moral consequences. So as we mark the anniversary of the pill, we should spend more time trying to understand the social forces that caused us to react to the pill as we did, allowing us to discard a long-standing moral consensus, leaving only sexual chaos and uncertainty.
Stuart Koehl is a military historian and writer living in Northern Virginia.
Comments:
5.11.2010 | 5:19am
Judy K. Warner says:
Good points, Stuart. But the trend you describe didn't start with WWII. The Episcopal Church, which is ever sensitive to societal trends, approved the use of birth control "in limited circumstances" in 1920. I think WWI was also important in shattering the moral consensus. It certainly was in Britain and Europe, but also in the U.S.
5.11.2010 | 5:33am
Gregory K Laughlin says:
Good article, Stuart. The sexual revolution was really more of an evolution. Before WWII, there was the move in Protestant churches to approve the use of contraceptives, at least in some circumstances. For example, it was in 1930 when the Anglican Communion approved its use at its periodic Lambeth Conference and 1931 when Federal Council of the Churches (now the National Council of Churches) considered a similar resolution, which was tabled because of conservative opposition. And, as I am sure you are well aware, sexual promiscuity was rampant in antebellum America, with high rates of abortion throughout the 1850s and 1860s. It was the mid-19th century "sexual revolution" which led to the enactment of the Comstock Act in 1873 and its state counterparts in the years that followed. In short, the 1960's sexual revolution was the product of a very long history.
But it was the pill that empowered women to take total control over contraception and that turned out to make women in general and that, in turn, has turned out to make them more subject to being used by men, not less.
But it was the pill that empowered women to take total control over contraception and that turned out to make women in general and that, in turn, has turned out to make them more subject to being used by men, not less.
5.11.2010 | 7:01am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
Sorry about all the typos. I was surrounded by clamoring children when I wrote the earlier comment. I'm now in relative calm of my office. I'm not sure what excuse I'll have if I have in typos in this comment. ;-)
5.11.2010 | 7:31am
william williams says:
The problem here is that we could continue to go back even further in time, and legitimately so. For example, in fin de siecle France, contraception was rampant, even without the pill or condoms. And if we take the long view, there is substantial evidence to support the claim that it was the philosophes of eighteenth century France (as well as the aristocratic classes of Restoration England), that first encouraged the kind of libertinism that would see in sexual expression only the pleasures and none of the responsibilities.
5.11.2010 | 8:06am
Josephus P. Franks says:
Ever since our cave-dwelling days, humans have searched for and found ways to enjoy the pleasure of sex without the responsibility of raising a child. This is a laudable goal: increasing the amount of pleasure in life, and decreasing unintended, life-changing and life-creating consequences.
Of course, for those imbued with the spirit of puritanism, more pleasure is a bad thing. I believed this too, back in my first few years of puberty, when I'd on occasion read First Things. But to paraphrase St. Paul: when I was a child, I read things fit for a child; when I became a man, I put away such childish things.
Of course, for those imbued with the spirit of puritanism, more pleasure is a bad thing. I believed this too, back in my first few years of puberty, when I'd on occasion read First Things. But to paraphrase St. Paul: when I was a child, I read things fit for a child; when I became a man, I put away such childish things.
5.11.2010 | 8:14am
Josephus P. Franks says:
william squared: for post-Dark Ages Europe, you may be right. But much of the rest of the world's people didn't need so much time to arrive at the philosophically unassailable conclusion that pleasure is to be engaged in to the greatest extent possible without causing harm; i.e., ethical hedonism. For most of the patriarchal, warmongering societies that conquered and pillaged the planet, this was a difficult conclusion to reach, and most still have not. But there is ample evidence of tribes, some still extant, whose relationship to sex and pleasure is healthy and libertine. Though filled with plenty of its own barbarities, the Indian subcontinent has had eras of civilization where sex was elevated to a sublime status, sans any absurd Western association with dirtiness and evil (which always cracks me up, since this association is usually in bed with - so to speak - a very permissive attitude toward brutal violence).
5.11.2010 | 8:30am
George Sim Johnston says:
Jack Kerouac's "On the Road", set in the late forties, depicts a milieu where a sexual revolution is well under way. But one could argue that such behavior was contained imperfectly to self-consciously bohemian set, and that it was the Pill that unleashed the sexual carnival that is still going on. Women have been the obvious losers--from the standpoint of health and their bargaining position in the marriage market--but feminists don't seem to have figured that out yet. The Mayo Clinic released a study a few years ago pointing to a connection between the use of the Pill and breast cancer; but this is a taboo subject in the media, to be approached only with circumlocutions.
5.11.2010 | 8:59am
Ars Artium says:
It seems odd that in a forum such as this, disagreements are often framed using personal insults, even sneering. Different points of view do exist and are often formed by one's life experience. In other words, some knowledge can be gained only through the living of it. One perspective on human sexuality - one which is gained through a serious attempt to integrate this human power with one's whole self - offers certain insights that are worth consideration. To combine one's sexuality with commitment to a specific person in a specific situation such as marriage yields rewards across the entire spectrum of life. It is one of the ways in which sexuality can be expressed by an acting person - another way of expressing one's sexuality in a way that is "healthy" for the whole person. It also has the effect of elevating "sex to a sublime status", a status that is, in fact, literally life-giving.
5.11.2010 | 9:22am
Erin Kelly says:
"Ethical hedonism" is a moral contradiction in terms that cannot be used in serious debate, Mr. Franks. Trying to disguise the quest to place oneself at the center of the moral and social universe with adult coinage does not hide the reality of what that quest truly resembles, which you paraphrased quite nicely but obviously have not yet been able to comprehend: a child demanding, "But I waaaaaaaant it!"
5.11.2010 | 9:35am
jason taylor says:
Why doesn't every war that affects a large section of the population do this? It's not as if it's new is it?
Napolean's Wars ended with people coming home to be-Victorians.
Napolean's Wars ended with people coming home to be-Victorians.
5.11.2010 | 9:48am
Kamilla says:
Stuart,
You mention the Griswold decision in 1965. The other event in 1965 that few people mention was ACOG's September technical bulletin which re-defined pregnancy without scientific consensus, pressure or discussion. Previously, conception was recognized as occuring at the moment of, well, conception. The bulletin re-defined conception as occuring at implantation. So, a woman could be said to be not yet pregnant until implantation.
I think this was every bit as significant for Christians as Lambeth 1930 was. This handy little rhetorical sleight-of-hand allowed Christian women to pop Maggie Sanger's "magic pill" with a clear conscience. After all, if the woman was never pregnant, the pill could hardly be said to have an abortifacent effect, right? And those tiniest of humans (the number of which there have been, no one knows) which get flushed down the toilet with her next pseudo period are defined out of existence.
I wonder how easily Mifepristone and Plan B would have been shoved down our throats if the members of ACOG has protested the "newspeak" in their technical bulletin and refused to put the new language into practice?
Kamilla
You mention the Griswold decision in 1965. The other event in 1965 that few people mention was ACOG's September technical bulletin which re-defined pregnancy without scientific consensus, pressure or discussion. Previously, conception was recognized as occuring at the moment of, well, conception. The bulletin re-defined conception as occuring at implantation. So, a woman could be said to be not yet pregnant until implantation.
I think this was every bit as significant for Christians as Lambeth 1930 was. This handy little rhetorical sleight-of-hand allowed Christian women to pop Maggie Sanger's "magic pill" with a clear conscience. After all, if the woman was never pregnant, the pill could hardly be said to have an abortifacent effect, right? And those tiniest of humans (the number of which there have been, no one knows) which get flushed down the toilet with her next pseudo period are defined out of existence.
I wonder how easily Mifepristone and Plan B would have been shoved down our throats if the members of ACOG has protested the "newspeak" in their technical bulletin and refused to put the new language into practice?
Kamilla
5.11.2010 | 10:12am
alias clio says:
Mr Taylor (5.11.2010 9:35 am),
Napoleon's wars ended in 1815. They were preceded and followed by an age of libertinism, perhaps encouraged by the upheavals of the Industrial Revolution. The Victorian era did not begin to begin until 1837, a generation later, when the young queen ascended to the throne. It took another generation for real "Victorianism" to take hold of popular behaviour and morality. That said, I don't think your point is altogether wrong. War affects a society in many different ways, and can lead to a strengthening as well as a loosening of "traditional" morality.
Yet the two world wars of the 20th century mobilized soldiers and civilians in unprecedented numbers (even in the Napoleonic wars), and mobilized both sexes, which was also unknown in previous wars. It must be said, too, that the world wars of the 20th century were of such kind as to cause those who took part in them or witnessed them to question the very nature and foundations of the societies which had made them possible. "All that morality, all that science, all that effort...to produce this?!@?" was a thought that occurred to many a soldier or nurse in both wars, I suspect, no matter how traditional their upbringing or "values".
The realisation that "western civ." had contributed to the slaughter of Jews on a mass scale was also a nail in the coffin for many people who were already inclined to despair of its future. "Throw it all out...let it all rot" was the reaction, natural if not necessarily rational, of many who lived through those terrible cataclysms.
Napoleon's wars ended in 1815. They were preceded and followed by an age of libertinism, perhaps encouraged by the upheavals of the Industrial Revolution. The Victorian era did not begin to begin until 1837, a generation later, when the young queen ascended to the throne. It took another generation for real "Victorianism" to take hold of popular behaviour and morality. That said, I don't think your point is altogether wrong. War affects a society in many different ways, and can lead to a strengthening as well as a loosening of "traditional" morality.
Yet the two world wars of the 20th century mobilized soldiers and civilians in unprecedented numbers (even in the Napoleonic wars), and mobilized both sexes, which was also unknown in previous wars. It must be said, too, that the world wars of the 20th century were of such kind as to cause those who took part in them or witnessed them to question the very nature and foundations of the societies which had made them possible. "All that morality, all that science, all that effort...to produce this?!@?" was a thought that occurred to many a soldier or nurse in both wars, I suspect, no matter how traditional their upbringing or "values".
The realisation that "western civ." had contributed to the slaughter of Jews on a mass scale was also a nail in the coffin for many people who were already inclined to despair of its future. "Throw it all out...let it all rot" was the reaction, natural if not necessarily rational, of many who lived through those terrible cataclysms.
5.11.2010 | 10:23am
Dan Kennedy says:
The pill did accelerate a significant change in how "polite society" profiled sexuality.
5.11.2010 | 10:26am
Paul Shonk says:
Mr. Franks: I'm pretty sure St. Paul would have included ethical hedonism under the category of "thinking like a child."
Also, it is not very credible to claim that you have outgrown First Things when you have obviously just been reading the First Things website. Perhaps you're in the process of outgrowing FT, but you're not quite there yet?
Also, it is not very credible to claim that you have outgrown First Things when you have obviously just been reading the First Things website. Perhaps you're in the process of outgrowing FT, but you're not quite there yet?
5.11.2010 | 11:35am
Michael O. says:
Franks wrote: "This is a laudable goal ... increasing the amount of pleasure in life, and decreasing unintended, life-changing and life-creating consequences.
... But to paraphrase St. Paul: when I was a child, I read things fit for a child; when I became a man, I put away such childish things."
I had to put these together here because it is quite funny that you reject life-changing consequences - and somehow believe you changed from a child to a man.
... But to paraphrase St. Paul: when I was a child, I read things fit for a child; when I became a man, I put away such childish things."
I had to put these together here because it is quite funny that you reject life-changing consequences - and somehow believe you changed from a child to a man.
5.11.2010 | 12:31pm
Josephus P. Franks says:
Michael, I don't "reject life-changing consequences" - rather, I look with disfavor on unintended life-changing consequences, particularly when the consequence is the creation of a new life one has not planned and made provision for.
Paul, you are probably right about what your namesake would have thought about ethical hedonism. Doesn't mean he's any more right about his restrictive view towards sex than he was right about his permissive view towards slavery. Anyhow, I went to the FT website for the first time ever (I had subscribed to the magazine in the past) when I discovered that my favorite intellectual misanthrope and unintentional comedian on economic matters, writing at Asia Times Online under the pen name of a dead German historian and philosopher whose work was much admired by the Nazis, is actually an editor of a Roman Catholic magazine I used to read in my youth.
Erin, so I can't use the term 'ethical hedonism' in "serious" debate - then I must be engaging in debate that is flippant? Oh, but I am deadly serious. So many people who style themselves as Christians mistake genital taboos for morality, and by doing so inadvertently focus attention away from true morality, the purview of which entirely excludes what genitals are doing with each other, because it is exclusively concerned with preventing people from harming and causing pain to each other, on purpose or by omission.
Humanity shares a universal core of morality - remarkable considering the near-infinite variety of non-belief, myths, cults, false religions and the one true religion scattered throughout the globe. What comprises this core is the Golden Rule, prohibitions against stealing and murder (sadly this last is all too often limited to members of one's own in-group, like clan, country, religion, class, etc.) - and then there are totally arbitrary and relative *taboos* that are different in every culture, and even within cultures as time goes by. For instance, Western civilization started being very pro-gay (think Greece, Rome), and then changed to anti-gay, and has now mostly changed back. But everything related to sexuality is not in the realm of universal human morality, but in the realm of taboo. Which is why I denigrate this false morality by reducing it to its particulars: genital interactions.
What absolutely enrages and galls me is how in this culture, genital taboos take precedence over real morality. Two examples: genitals and graphic sex cannot appear on television, but vicious, realistic violence can; and the "Christian" Unitedstatesian right-wing (my apologies to Christ for the slight) supports wars and murderous despots and oligarchies across the globe while saving its indignation for: taboos governing which genitals can interact with which other genitals at which time and place and under which circumstances.
Ars, I do sneer at reprehensible ideas, but you will look in vain for a single instance of a personal insult in what I have written here. I have no quarrels with your view of sexuality, and wish that it brings you happiness. I just hope that you do not force this view as the only tenable, or worse yet, allowable view opon people who have not yet developed their critical faculties.
Paul, you are probably right about what your namesake would have thought about ethical hedonism. Doesn't mean he's any more right about his restrictive view towards sex than he was right about his permissive view towards slavery. Anyhow, I went to the FT website for the first time ever (I had subscribed to the magazine in the past) when I discovered that my favorite intellectual misanthrope and unintentional comedian on economic matters, writing at Asia Times Online under the pen name of a dead German historian and philosopher whose work was much admired by the Nazis, is actually an editor of a Roman Catholic magazine I used to read in my youth.
Erin, so I can't use the term 'ethical hedonism' in "serious" debate - then I must be engaging in debate that is flippant? Oh, but I am deadly serious. So many people who style themselves as Christians mistake genital taboos for morality, and by doing so inadvertently focus attention away from true morality, the purview of which entirely excludes what genitals are doing with each other, because it is exclusively concerned with preventing people from harming and causing pain to each other, on purpose or by omission.
Humanity shares a universal core of morality - remarkable considering the near-infinite variety of non-belief, myths, cults, false religions and the one true religion scattered throughout the globe. What comprises this core is the Golden Rule, prohibitions against stealing and murder (sadly this last is all too often limited to members of one's own in-group, like clan, country, religion, class, etc.) - and then there are totally arbitrary and relative *taboos* that are different in every culture, and even within cultures as time goes by. For instance, Western civilization started being very pro-gay (think Greece, Rome), and then changed to anti-gay, and has now mostly changed back. But everything related to sexuality is not in the realm of universal human morality, but in the realm of taboo. Which is why I denigrate this false morality by reducing it to its particulars: genital interactions.
What absolutely enrages and galls me is how in this culture, genital taboos take precedence over real morality. Two examples: genitals and graphic sex cannot appear on television, but vicious, realistic violence can; and the "Christian" Unitedstatesian right-wing (my apologies to Christ for the slight) supports wars and murderous despots and oligarchies across the globe while saving its indignation for: taboos governing which genitals can interact with which other genitals at which time and place and under which circumstances.
Ars, I do sneer at reprehensible ideas, but you will look in vain for a single instance of a personal insult in what I have written here. I have no quarrels with your view of sexuality, and wish that it brings you happiness. I just hope that you do not force this view as the only tenable, or worse yet, allowable view opon people who have not yet developed their critical faculties.
5.11.2010 | 1:35pm
Robert Moody says:
Josephus, I have to concede the point about right wing prudes controlling television content. That is almost as obvious as not needing moral restrictions on something as trivial as human sexuality. Where does that pesky "universal core of morality" (even with your limitations) come from anyway?
5.11.2010 | 1:44pm
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
That's very interesting, Kamilla. I didn't know that. I just assumed that it was much more recent than 1965. It would be interesting to read the documents which record the arguments in favor of this change. I'm guessing it is directly related to the fact that even then the promoters of the pill knew it caused early abortions, but they didn't want to disclose that fact. The easiest way to avoid having to do so was to redefine when pregnancy began. If you have any citations on this particular point, I would very much appreciate your sending them to me.
5.11.2010 | 1:45pm
jason taylor says:
Mr Franks the concept of being "free" of sexual discipline is quite closely related to the concept of preserving that "freedom" by killing large numbers of babies who as it happens do not carry guns.
5.11.2010 | 3:09pm
Kevin J Jones says:
On the technological level, the invention of antibiotics may have been more key than the invention of prophylactics. Syphilitic insanity made lives of dissipation more obviously wrong.
A broadly accurate phrase like "World War II shattered an existing moral consensus" deserves a thorough study of the precise mechanisms at work.
For instance, military spending on prophylactic measures surely gave bureaucratic access and financial boosts to permissive businessmen.
Anti-war partisans of Fr. Coughlin figured war was on the way when, years before Pearl Harbor, they noticed the U.S. government was stockpiling condoms.
"Fortunately, it was at a time when a man just out of high school could get a high-paying, semi-skilled job with union protection."
My hobby horse of the moment is anti-discrimination laws. Starting in the early 1960s, laws started to be passed in the U.S. prohibiting pay discimination based on sex. This destroyed the family wage culture and created competitive advantages for feminist workplaces. These trends metastasized with the addition of sex to the Civil Right Act (an addition intended as a "poison pill" by segregationists).
When society stopped being able to declare the desireability of helping a man to support a wife and kids, it stopped being able to form young people for marriage.
"It would be safe to wager, though, that many of those marriages collapsed once their children were grown."
Before betting, I would like some statistics on this claim.
Other obvious roots of the sexual revolution: divorce, co-education and sex education, and the "free speech" pro-obscenity movement.
A broadly accurate phrase like "World War II shattered an existing moral consensus" deserves a thorough study of the precise mechanisms at work.
For instance, military spending on prophylactic measures surely gave bureaucratic access and financial boosts to permissive businessmen.
Anti-war partisans of Fr. Coughlin figured war was on the way when, years before Pearl Harbor, they noticed the U.S. government was stockpiling condoms.
"Fortunately, it was at a time when a man just out of high school could get a high-paying, semi-skilled job with union protection."
My hobby horse of the moment is anti-discrimination laws. Starting in the early 1960s, laws started to be passed in the U.S. prohibiting pay discimination based on sex. This destroyed the family wage culture and created competitive advantages for feminist workplaces. These trends metastasized with the addition of sex to the Civil Right Act (an addition intended as a "poison pill" by segregationists).
When society stopped being able to declare the desireability of helping a man to support a wife and kids, it stopped being able to form young people for marriage.
"It would be safe to wager, though, that many of those marriages collapsed once their children were grown."
Before betting, I would like some statistics on this claim.
Other obvious roots of the sexual revolution: divorce, co-education and sex education, and the "free speech" pro-obscenity movement.
5.11.2010 | 3:12pm
Peter Leavitt says:
Mr. Franks waxes enthusiastically regarding "ethical hedonism," an obvious contradiction of terms. St. Paul in Romans well understood that sodomy and other forms of consensual sexual perversion [hedonism] violated the moral law and led inexorably to perdition. The trouble with hedonists like Mr. Frank is that they lack any firm conception of the moral law, however popular this stance might be among modern and postmodern folk.
As to the "origins" of the sexual revolution, the pill is a mere symptom of the main cause of the sexual revolution that is the result of the modern illusion that autonomous humans get to choose their "lifestyle" including assorted forms of perverse sexuality.
As to the "origins" of the sexual revolution, the pill is a mere symptom of the main cause of the sexual revolution that is the result of the modern illusion that autonomous humans get to choose their "lifestyle" including assorted forms of perverse sexuality.
5.11.2010 | 6:02pm
Kamilla says:
Greg,
There weren't any scholarly documents, articles, discussions. That's what makes so very strange. But I will pass along a few links I have which may be of interest.
Kamilla
There weren't any scholarly documents, articles, discussions. That's what makes so very strange. But I will pass along a few links I have which may be of interest.
Kamilla
5.11.2010 | 6:13pm
Paul Shonk says:
Mr. Franks: I'm sure there's going to be a lot of readers correcting you, and I don't wish to gang up. But when you spend time on a forum you have professedly outgrown, you have to expect some opposition.
You prop up up your argument for libertinism with a red herring: that the censors of television allow graphic violence but forbid graphic sex. Even if true, this would say nothing about the morality (or ethics) of sexual libertinism. In fact, though I have no wish to defend television, it is an equal opportunity purveyor of casual sex and violence, which, incidentally, are not as unrelated as you claim. Fortunately, portrayals of both sex and violence remain subject to a modicum of regulation as far as the level of detail that is permitted on public-access channels.
In your response to Ars Artium you also use the diversionary tactic of suggesting that anyone making a claim to objective moral truth is thereby somehow "forcing his view on others." Last time I checked, you and every other adult in this country were legally free to engage in whatever acts of consensual sex you pleased. That being the case, if I argue that certain acts are objectively immoral or unethical, then you are not constrained at all, except perhaps by your own conscience.
Red herrings aside, you fail to apply the Golden Rule in any meaningful way to sexual acts. Rather, you apply a "do no harm" principle, which is akin to a negative Golden Rule; i.e., do not do to others what you would not have them do to you. I'm not sure, but I think you mean to argue that sexual promiscuity does no harm and is therefore licit under this version of the Golden Rule. Unfortunately for this argument, it has been shown again and again that sexual promiscuity does great harm to a great many people. At least, it is far from being the innocent pleasure you portray. Adultery, abortion, venereal disease, crimes of passion: correct me if I'm wrong, but these are all part of the ugly underside of your "ethical hedonism."
You prop up up your argument for libertinism with a red herring: that the censors of television allow graphic violence but forbid graphic sex. Even if true, this would say nothing about the morality (or ethics) of sexual libertinism. In fact, though I have no wish to defend television, it is an equal opportunity purveyor of casual sex and violence, which, incidentally, are not as unrelated as you claim. Fortunately, portrayals of both sex and violence remain subject to a modicum of regulation as far as the level of detail that is permitted on public-access channels.
In your response to Ars Artium you also use the diversionary tactic of suggesting that anyone making a claim to objective moral truth is thereby somehow "forcing his view on others." Last time I checked, you and every other adult in this country were legally free to engage in whatever acts of consensual sex you pleased. That being the case, if I argue that certain acts are objectively immoral or unethical, then you are not constrained at all, except perhaps by your own conscience.
Red herrings aside, you fail to apply the Golden Rule in any meaningful way to sexual acts. Rather, you apply a "do no harm" principle, which is akin to a negative Golden Rule; i.e., do not do to others what you would not have them do to you. I'm not sure, but I think you mean to argue that sexual promiscuity does no harm and is therefore licit under this version of the Golden Rule. Unfortunately for this argument, it has been shown again and again that sexual promiscuity does great harm to a great many people. At least, it is far from being the innocent pleasure you portray. Adultery, abortion, venereal disease, crimes of passion: correct me if I'm wrong, but these are all part of the ugly underside of your "ethical hedonism."
5.11.2010 | 8:23pm
Br. Timothy says:
Erin, very well said.
Josephus,
It appears you are still reading what you consider to be "things fit for a child." More importantly, anyone who considers St. Paul to be an authority can hardly argue for hedonistic license. Quite unfortunately, you appear to be incredibly blinded by the darkness of your moral bankruptcy, as well as fettered by the chains of your passions. "Whoever commits sin is a slave to sin." If you are not capable of exercising self-restraint, you are a slave indeed; and if you aren't able to perceive the manifest falsehood of your claims, you are an ignorant slave.
Ars,
Allow me to suggest that we not timorously mollify the demands of basic morality by describing what is right as simply 'one way of doing things.' The union of freedom and responsibility is as real in sexual matters as it is in all others. Respecting the procreative function of sex is simply the RIGHT way to live, while exalting base pleasure above love and responsibility is nothing other than morally evil - an ignoble perversion fit only for the beasts.
Josephus,
It appears you are still reading what you consider to be "things fit for a child." More importantly, anyone who considers St. Paul to be an authority can hardly argue for hedonistic license. Quite unfortunately, you appear to be incredibly blinded by the darkness of your moral bankruptcy, as well as fettered by the chains of your passions. "Whoever commits sin is a slave to sin." If you are not capable of exercising self-restraint, you are a slave indeed; and if you aren't able to perceive the manifest falsehood of your claims, you are an ignorant slave.
Ars,
Allow me to suggest that we not timorously mollify the demands of basic morality by describing what is right as simply 'one way of doing things.' The union of freedom and responsibility is as real in sexual matters as it is in all others. Respecting the procreative function of sex is simply the RIGHT way to live, while exalting base pleasure above love and responsibility is nothing other than morally evil - an ignoble perversion fit only for the beasts.
5.11.2010 | 9:35pm
txw says:
I have often thought about the WWII war orphans--this must have contributed as well to the breakdown. Kids growing up with a dead father. Perhaps the mom remarried, but the healing of the kids may have been the "shut up and deal with it" or "kids can handle anything" variety of denial or ignorance. Drugs and sex become a means to cope with loss. Maybe listening to the Archies, too.
The CDC has a table on their website somewhere listing the incidence/prevalence of HPV infections in women (now our most common STD). Genital HPV wasn't very prevalent in the early 1970's, but crept up later. Lest Koehl's argument gets twisted around to mean "we've always acted like this", the HPV prevalence history tells otherwise.
The CDC has a table on their website somewhere listing the incidence/prevalence of HPV infections in women (now our most common STD). Genital HPV wasn't very prevalent in the early 1970's, but crept up later. Lest Koehl's argument gets twisted around to mean "we've always acted like this", the HPV prevalence history tells otherwise.
5.12.2010 | 5:26pm
michael says:
You really cannot talk about the advent of the sexual revolution without at least mentioning the Kinsey Reports and even Hugh Hefner's Playboy Magazine. Those watersheds served to convince people that what they had previously believed was perverted was not and that pre-marital sex was normal and natural. No doubt the war had a traumatic effect on sexual mores. British women were sunbathing naked in Hyde Park immediately after WWII but it would take more than that to unhinge sexual morality in the United States. Previously despicable behaviors needed to be normalized.
5.13.2010 | 5:34am
Stuart Koehl says:
Jason wrote: "Why doesn't every war that affects a large section of the population do this? It's not as if it's new is it?
Napolean's Wars ended with people coming home to be-Victorians."
Jason is correct, and the original draft of the article said as much, but got dropped to fit the space limits of the blog. The Civil War affected morals in the United States for most of the last half of the 19th century. World War I had much the same effect in Europe that World War II had on us--so the Europeans have a 20-year head start.
But Jason is being a bit simplistic when he says that the veterans of the Napoleonic Wars came home to become Victorians. Actually, the end of the Napoleonic Wars in Britain saw a continuation of the debauchery of the Regency period, which continued until the death of King William IV. Even after the accession of Queen Victoria, loose morals and unrestrained violence remained the rule in England down to the middle of the century. It took a confluence of personalities, events and social forces to bring about a lasting transformation. Among these were the religious revival in England, led first by Wesley in the 18th century, then by William Wilberforce; the emergence of an industrial England that required sober, industrious production line workers; the rise of the mercantile and industrial middle class, which valued probity and sobriety as necessary to prosperity; and the example of Queen Victoria and her consort, Prince Albert, who set fashion among the elite through patronage and access to the court.
One must also not forget that the Victorians--starting with the Queen herself--were a randy lot. Aristocratic sex scandals titillated then the way celebrity scandals do today. And the lower classes led lives of social and sexual degradation that matches what we find in the underclass today. There were more brothels in mid-19th century London than there were churches, and they were probably better attended, too. Look closely at life in Whitchapel at the time of Jack the Ripper, and you'll see that the notorious London "stews" did not disappear until the end of the century--and the slums themselves had to wait for German urban renewal in 1940.
My main point is changes in morality are driven by complex combinations of factors, and it is both foolish and dangerous to engage in reductionism (e.g., to believe that the Pill itself caused the sexual revolution, and its corollary, that eliminating it would trigger a moral renewal).
If I could have extended my remarks, I would have noted that morality tends to be cyclical, and periods of laxity are followed by periods of reticence, almost like clockwork. Looking at the present situation, one gets the feeling that the libertine period in which we have been living is at its apogee, and that the coming decades will see a reversion to the more conventional morality that prevailed before World War II--recognizing, however, that every age has sexual license, but the way in which society deals with it determines how we remember each era.
Napolean's Wars ended with people coming home to be-Victorians."
Jason is correct, and the original draft of the article said as much, but got dropped to fit the space limits of the blog. The Civil War affected morals in the United States for most of the last half of the 19th century. World War I had much the same effect in Europe that World War II had on us--so the Europeans have a 20-year head start.
But Jason is being a bit simplistic when he says that the veterans of the Napoleonic Wars came home to become Victorians. Actually, the end of the Napoleonic Wars in Britain saw a continuation of the debauchery of the Regency period, which continued until the death of King William IV. Even after the accession of Queen Victoria, loose morals and unrestrained violence remained the rule in England down to the middle of the century. It took a confluence of personalities, events and social forces to bring about a lasting transformation. Among these were the religious revival in England, led first by Wesley in the 18th century, then by William Wilberforce; the emergence of an industrial England that required sober, industrious production line workers; the rise of the mercantile and industrial middle class, which valued probity and sobriety as necessary to prosperity; and the example of Queen Victoria and her consort, Prince Albert, who set fashion among the elite through patronage and access to the court.
One must also not forget that the Victorians--starting with the Queen herself--were a randy lot. Aristocratic sex scandals titillated then the way celebrity scandals do today. And the lower classes led lives of social and sexual degradation that matches what we find in the underclass today. There were more brothels in mid-19th century London than there were churches, and they were probably better attended, too. Look closely at life in Whitchapel at the time of Jack the Ripper, and you'll see that the notorious London "stews" did not disappear until the end of the century--and the slums themselves had to wait for German urban renewal in 1940.
My main point is changes in morality are driven by complex combinations of factors, and it is both foolish and dangerous to engage in reductionism (e.g., to believe that the Pill itself caused the sexual revolution, and its corollary, that eliminating it would trigger a moral renewal).
If I could have extended my remarks, I would have noted that morality tends to be cyclical, and periods of laxity are followed by periods of reticence, almost like clockwork. Looking at the present situation, one gets the feeling that the libertine period in which we have been living is at its apogee, and that the coming decades will see a reversion to the more conventional morality that prevailed before World War II--recognizing, however, that every age has sexual license, but the way in which society deals with it determines how we remember each era.
5.13.2010 | 11:25am
Stuart Koehl says:
Michael's point about Kinsey and Hefner have merit, but I think it was more a case of confirming people in what they already believed or wanted to believe. If the moral consensus had remained intact, both of these hedonist poseurs would have been sent packing.
Michael grossly underestimates the impact of World War II on British sexual morality, though. The combination of the war, the Blitz, and the blackout with the arrival of hundreds of thousands of American GIs conspired to transform everyone from respectable matrons and merry widows to innocent, wide-eyed country girls into enthusiastic horizontal commandos, doing their best to support the war effort and our gallant lads in uniform. That an American private made more than a British lieutenant, that our men were better uniformed, better groomed, smelled better and were generally more polite and attentive to women than their British counterparts, and had access to all sorts of food and luxury goods didn't hurt, either.
Much the same situation pertained in Australia, with the added advantage that most of Australia's physically fit male population was deployed either in New Guinea or the Mediterranean. No wonder British and American men constantly harped that we Yanks were "Overpaid, oversexed and over here".
Michael grossly underestimates the impact of World War II on British sexual morality, though. The combination of the war, the Blitz, and the blackout with the arrival of hundreds of thousands of American GIs conspired to transform everyone from respectable matrons and merry widows to innocent, wide-eyed country girls into enthusiastic horizontal commandos, doing their best to support the war effort and our gallant lads in uniform. That an American private made more than a British lieutenant, that our men were better uniformed, better groomed, smelled better and were generally more polite and attentive to women than their British counterparts, and had access to all sorts of food and luxury goods didn't hurt, either.
Much the same situation pertained in Australia, with the added advantage that most of Australia's physically fit male population was deployed either in New Guinea or the Mediterranean. No wonder British and American men constantly harped that we Yanks were "Overpaid, oversexed and over here".
5.13.2010 | 11:42am
Stuart Koehl says:
Kevin Jones wrote: "For instance, military spending on prophylactic measures surely gave bureaucratic access and financial boosts to permissive businessmen.
Anti-war partisans of Fr. Coughlin figured war was on the way when, years before Pearl Harbor, they noticed the U.S. government was stockpiling condoms."
The United States distributed condoms ("French letters") to the troops in World War I, and repeated the practice in World War II (and in all subsequent conflicts) for a very good reason: venereal disease can sideline more troops than the enemy. VD rates in the Civil War were carefully suppressed, but represented a major drain of manpower, one that reached even into the ranks of general officers (Lt. Gen. A.P. Hill of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia contracted gonorrhea at West Point, which incapacitated him during several critical battles, including Gettysburg). Even prior to World War II, the U.S. Navy in both San Diego and Pearl Harbor, kept lists of sanctioned brothels and distributed condoms to sailors going on shore leave.
In World War II, the VD rate in the Italian theater reached a staggering levels, to the point that U.S. commanders had to license brothels and use Army doctors to inspect and certify the working girls in them. The situation once the U.S. Army got to France was not much better.
Bernhard Montgomery, a sexual prude if ever there was one, took a very pragmatic approach and opened up "official" brothels in North Africa in order to reduce the VD rate--a measure that was highly successful. Unfortunately, some blue stockings back in Britain found out about it, raised a stink and forced Montgomery to close his sporting houses; VD rates went back to their previous levels. In the days before penicillin was readily available, a soldier sidelined with a "social disease" was as useful as one wounded by the enemy, and that just was not acceptable, so moral scruples went out the window--just one more example of how war can erode moral standards.
Anti-war partisans of Fr. Coughlin figured war was on the way when, years before Pearl Harbor, they noticed the U.S. government was stockpiling condoms."
The United States distributed condoms ("French letters") to the troops in World War I, and repeated the practice in World War II (and in all subsequent conflicts) for a very good reason: venereal disease can sideline more troops than the enemy. VD rates in the Civil War were carefully suppressed, but represented a major drain of manpower, one that reached even into the ranks of general officers (Lt. Gen. A.P. Hill of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia contracted gonorrhea at West Point, which incapacitated him during several critical battles, including Gettysburg). Even prior to World War II, the U.S. Navy in both San Diego and Pearl Harbor, kept lists of sanctioned brothels and distributed condoms to sailors going on shore leave.
In World War II, the VD rate in the Italian theater reached a staggering levels, to the point that U.S. commanders had to license brothels and use Army doctors to inspect and certify the working girls in them. The situation once the U.S. Army got to France was not much better.
Bernhard Montgomery, a sexual prude if ever there was one, took a very pragmatic approach and opened up "official" brothels in North Africa in order to reduce the VD rate--a measure that was highly successful. Unfortunately, some blue stockings back in Britain found out about it, raised a stink and forced Montgomery to close his sporting houses; VD rates went back to their previous levels. In the days before penicillin was readily available, a soldier sidelined with a "social disease" was as useful as one wounded by the enemy, and that just was not acceptable, so moral scruples went out the window--just one more example of how war can erode moral standards.
5.13.2010 | 11:57am
Stuart Koehl says:
txw wrote: "The CDC has a table on their website somewhere listing the incidence/prevalence of HPV infections in women (now our most common STD). Genital HPV wasn't very prevalent in the early 1970's, but crept up later. Lest Koehl's argument gets twisted around to mean "we've always acted like this", the HPV prevalence history tells otherwise."
That's not necessarily the case. New sexually transmitted diseases arise regularly and become endemic, but the absence of that disease previously does not mean that sexual morality was better (or worse) than later. The examples of syphilis and HIV are good examples. HPV was hardly recognized as an STD until quite recently, and I don't even know if there was a test to detect it before then. Either way, you can look at rates for other sexually transmitted diseases throughout the 19th and 20th centuries (basically, the timeline for accurate medical records) to see that there are spikes and lulls, but never a period when you could say that the rates for those diseases were uniformly low.
That's not necessarily the case. New sexually transmitted diseases arise regularly and become endemic, but the absence of that disease previously does not mean that sexual morality was better (or worse) than later. The examples of syphilis and HIV are good examples. HPV was hardly recognized as an STD until quite recently, and I don't even know if there was a test to detect it before then. Either way, you can look at rates for other sexually transmitted diseases throughout the 19th and 20th centuries (basically, the timeline for accurate medical records) to see that there are spikes and lulls, but never a period when you could say that the rates for those diseases were uniformly low.
5.14.2010 | 8:18am
Artaban says:
Bravo to Mr. Paul Shonk for his lucid refutation of Josephus. I would only add a few points.
In the words of Jesus, one can measure the morality of an action or cultural attitude "by its fruits". Let us consider the true consequences, i.e. "fruits" Mr. Franks, of what you call "a laudable goal: increasing the amount of pleasure in life, and decreasing unintended, life-changing and life-creating consequences":
1. An estimated one-fourth of Africa infected with HIV.
2. Two-thirds of American 21-29 year-olds already infected with one or more STDs (because condoms only prevent 2 of the 8 most common STDs).
3. One-third of all cases of infertility results from STDs, precipitating the expenditure of millions of dollars each year on in vitro fertilization and other extraordinary fertility treatments.
4. 91-97% of all cases of cervical cancer (sometimes fatal) are directly caused by HPV, a sexually transmitted disease.
5. Impending financial and social welfare insolvency, directly caused by an aging population that chose pleasure over normal childbearing, and failed to have enough children to replace an aging and dying populace. We are seeing it now in Greece's financial meltdown, soon in Russia and Japan, and will within our lifetimes bear its ills in America too.
6. The immeasurable heartache caused by sexual infidelity, and the considerable financial cost of divorce.
If we can know a thing by its fruits, Mr. Franks, one is required to completely abandon logic and reason--the very features of adulthood--in order to make the claim that the pursuit of pleasure and libertine sexuality sans consequence is a "laudable goal".
Even in non-sexual studies, the human capacity for self-control and delayed gratification has been linked with greater long-term financial prosperity, professional success, and emotional satisfaction/happiness (lookup the longitudinal marshmallow study). One "leaves childhood behind" when one ceases being a slave to pleasure.
In the words of Jesus, one can measure the morality of an action or cultural attitude "by its fruits". Let us consider the true consequences, i.e. "fruits" Mr. Franks, of what you call "a laudable goal: increasing the amount of pleasure in life, and decreasing unintended, life-changing and life-creating consequences":
1. An estimated one-fourth of Africa infected with HIV.
2. Two-thirds of American 21-29 year-olds already infected with one or more STDs (because condoms only prevent 2 of the 8 most common STDs).
3. One-third of all cases of infertility results from STDs, precipitating the expenditure of millions of dollars each year on in vitro fertilization and other extraordinary fertility treatments.
4. 91-97% of all cases of cervical cancer (sometimes fatal) are directly caused by HPV, a sexually transmitted disease.
5. Impending financial and social welfare insolvency, directly caused by an aging population that chose pleasure over normal childbearing, and failed to have enough children to replace an aging and dying populace. We are seeing it now in Greece's financial meltdown, soon in Russia and Japan, and will within our lifetimes bear its ills in America too.
6. The immeasurable heartache caused by sexual infidelity, and the considerable financial cost of divorce.
If we can know a thing by its fruits, Mr. Franks, one is required to completely abandon logic and reason--the very features of adulthood--in order to make the claim that the pursuit of pleasure and libertine sexuality sans consequence is a "laudable goal".
Even in non-sexual studies, the human capacity for self-control and delayed gratification has been linked with greater long-term financial prosperity, professional success, and emotional satisfaction/happiness (lookup the longitudinal marshmallow study). One "leaves childhood behind" when one ceases being a slave to pleasure.
12.20.2010 | 7:12pm
John says:
My wife and I are in our mid-40s; her father is WWII vet. One night, We were watching the Ken Burns WWII documentary, and there was a sequence about life in Honolulu during the war. There was a shot of a couple of crisply-uniformed men exiting a storefront establishment prominently labeled "U.S. ARMY PROPHYLACTIC STATION." I nearly fell out of my chair-I know all about the stories of soldiers and sailors away from home, but I just couldn't believe that they were so open about it. I kidded my wife : "Honey, you think your dad ever stopped by one of those?" No answer, just the faintest smile.
Many good ideas above, to which I would add longer periods of education for both men and women post-WWII. A person is not generally inclined to marry until he or she has completed his or her education. It takes a much higher level of commitment to refrain from intercourse until age 21 or 25, than 16 or 18. Of course, this doesn't account for all the high school and even junior high school kids "doing it" these days.
Many good ideas above, to which I would add longer periods of education for both men and women post-WWII. A person is not generally inclined to marry until he or she has completed his or her education. It takes a much higher level of commitment to refrain from intercourse until age 21 or 25, than 16 or 18. Of course, this doesn't account for all the high school and even junior high school kids "doing it" these days.
